SECT. 1.] AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS priests and heads of families, and had two presidents,-one in the person of the high-priest, and another who sat in the name of the king. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the captivity, and two classes of judges, inferior and superior, were appointed. (Ezra vii. 25.) But the more difficult cases and appeals were brought, either before the -ruler of the state, or before the high-priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a supreme judicial tribunal was instituted. which is first mentioned under Hyrcanus II.' This tribunal (which must not be confounded with the seventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil administration of the government, but who never fulfilled the office of judges) is by the Talmudists denominated SANHEDRIN, and is the great Council so often mentioned in the New Testament. It was most probably instituted in the time of the Maccabees, and was composed of seventy or seventy-two members, under the chief presidency of the highpriest, under whom were two vice-presidents; the first of whom, called the Father of the Council, sat on the right, as the second vice-president, who was called Chakam, or the Wise Man, did on the left hand of the president. The other assessors, or members of this council, comprised three descriptions of persons, viz. 1. The Apps, or Chief Priests, who were partly such priests as had executed the pontificate, and partly the princes or chiefs of the twenty-four courses or classes of priests, who enjoyed this honourable title:-2. The perTe, or Elders, perhaps the princes of tribes or heads of families; and, 3. The гpт, Scribes, or men learned in the law. It does not appear that all the elders and scribes were members of this tribunal: most probably those only were assessors, who were either elected to the office, or nominated to it by royal authority. They are reported to have sat in a semi-circular form; and to this manner of their sitting in judgment Jesus Christ is supposed to refer in Matt. xix. 29., and St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi. 2. The Sanhedrin held its daily sittings early in the morning (according to the Talmudists) in the Temple; but they are contradicted by Josephus,2 who speaks of a council-house in the immediate vicinity of the Temple, where this council was in all probability convened; though in extraordinary emergencies it was assembled in the high-priest's house, as was the case in the mock trial of Jesus Christ. The authority of this tribunal was very extensive. It decided all causes, which were brought before it, by appeal from inferior courts; and also took cognizance of the general affairs of the nation. Before Judæa was subject to the Roman power, the Sanhedrin had the right of judging in capital cases, but not afterwards; the stoning of Stephen being (as we have already observed) a tumultuary act, and not in consequence of sentence pronounced by this council.3 Besides the Sanhedrin, the Talmudical writers assert that there were other smaller councils, each consisting of twentythree persons, who heard and determined petty causes: two of these were at Jerusalem, and one in every city containing one hundred and twenty inhabitants. Josephus is silent concerning these tribunals, but they certainly appear to have existed in the time of Jesus Christ; who," by images taken from these two courts, in a very striking manner represents the different degrees of future punishments, to which the impenitently wicked will be doomed according to the respecBut I say unto you, that tive heinousness of their crimes. whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the JUDGMENT; and whosever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the COUNCIL; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE. (Matt. v. 22.) That is, whosoever shall indulge causeless and unprovoked resentment against his Christian brother, shall be punished with a severity similar to that which is inflicted by the court of judgment. He, who shall suffer his passions to transport him to greater extravagances, so as to make his brother the object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to a still severer prnishment, corresponding to that which the council imposes. But he who shall load his fellow-Christian with odious appellations and abusive language, shall incur the severest degree of all punishments, equal to that of being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom :"4-which, having formerly been the scene of those horrid sacrifices of children to Moloch by causing them to pass through the fire, the Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 9. § 3. • De Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 4. § 2. lib. vi. c. 6. § 3. Dr. Lightfoot has given a list of sixteen presidents who directed the sanhedrin from the captivity till its dissolution. (Prospect of the Temple, ch xxii. 1. Werks, vol. ix. pp. 312-346. Svo. edit.) llarwoud's Introduction to the New Test vol. ii. pp. 158, 180 Jews in our Saviour's time used to denote the place of the Where there were not one hundred and twenty inhabitants 5 IV. It appears from Jer. xxi. 12., that causes were heard, and judgment was executed in the morning. According to the Talmud,' capital causes were prohibited from being heard in the night, as also were the institution of an examination, the pronouncing of sentence, and the carrying of it into execution, on one and the same day; and it was enjoined that at least the execution of a sentence should be deferred until the following day. How flagrantly this injunction was disregarded in the case of Jesus Christ, it is scarcely necessary to mention. According to the Talmud, also, no judgments could be executed on festival days; but this by ne means agrees with the end and design of capital punishment expressed in Deut. xvii. 13. viz. That all the people might hear and fear. It is evident from Matt. xxvi. 5. that the chief afraid to apprehend Jesus, lest there should be a tumult priests and other leading men among the Jews were at first among the people: it is not improbable that they feared the Galileans more than the populace of Jerusalem, because they were the countrymen of our Lord. Afterwards, however, when the traitor Judas presented himself to them, their fears vanished away. In the early ages of the Jewish history, judicial procedure Of advomust have been summary, as it still is in Asia.3 Every one pleaded his own cause; of this cates, such as ours, there is no appearance in any part of the Old Testament. practice we have a memorable instance in 1 Kings iii. 16— 28. As causes were heard at the city gate, where the people assembled to hear news or to pass away their time, Michaelis thinks that men of experience and wisdom might be asked for their opinions in difficult cases, and might sometimes assist with their advice those who seemed embarrassed in their own cause, even when it was a good one. Probably this is alluded to in Job xxix. 7-17. and Isa. i. 17.9 From the Romans, the use of advocates, or patrons who pleaded the cause of another, might have passed to the Jews. this view the word Пars, or advocate, is applied to Christ, our intercessor, who pleads the cause of sinners with his Father. (1 John ii. 1.) The form of proceeding appears to have been as follows: In 1. Those who were summoned before courts of judicaturo were said to be paypaμevos es xpion, because they were cited by posting up their names in some public place, and to these Josephus, De Bell. Jud. lib. vi. c. 3. § 3. And also among the Marootzee, a nation inhabiting the interior of Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv. pp. 320, 320 judgment was published or declared in writing. The Greek | pronounce the formula of the oath, either when it was a judiwriters applied the terms, to those whom the Romans called proscriptos or proscribed, that is, whose names were posted up in writing in some public place, as persons doomed to die, with a reward offered to whoever would kill them. To this usage there is an allusion in the Epistle of Jude (verse 4.), where the persons who are said to be ypeμμvos A5 TOUTO To aux, fore written to, or before described for, this condemnation, denote those who were long before described, in the examples of their wickedness contained in the writings of Moses and the prophets, such as the angels that sinned, the antediluvians, the people of Sodom, &c. And in the condemnation of these sinners, God has shown what he will do to all others like them.' In the sacred writings, all false teachers and impure practices have been most openly proscribed and condemned, and in the following verses of the same epistle the apostle distinctly specifies who these per-mim, in order to discover, not to convict the guilty party sons are. cial one, or taken on any other solemn occasion. A formula A peculiar mode of eliciting the truth was employed in the case of a woman suspected of adultery. She was to be brought by her husband to the tabernacle, afterwards to the temple; where she took an oath of purgation, imprecating tremendous punishment upon herself. The form of this process (which was the foundation of the trial by ordeal that sc generally prevailed in the dark ages) is detailed at length in Num. v. 11-31., to which the rabbinical writers have added a variety of frivolous ceremonies. If innocent, the woman suffered no inconvenience or injury; but if guilty, the punishment which she had imprecated on herself immediately overtook her." 2. He, who entered the action, went to the judges, and stated his affair to them; and then they sent officers with him to seize the party and bring him to justice. To this our Lord alludes, when he says (Matt. v. 25.), Agree with thine adversary while thou art in the way with him, before thou art brought before the judge, lest thou be condemned. On the day appointed for hearing the cause, the plaintiff and defendant presented themselves before the judges; who at first sat alone. (Deut. xxv. 1.) In later times, the Jewish writers inform us, that there were always two notaries belonging to the court, one of whom stood on the right hand of the judge, who wrote the sentence of acquittal; and the other, on his left hand, who wrote the sentence of condemnation. To this custom, probably, our Saviour referred (Matt. xxv. 33.), when, speaking of the last judgment, he says, that he will set the sheep on his right hand, in order to be acquitted, and 6. Sentences were only pronounced in the day time; of the goats on his left, in order to be condemned. It appears which circumstance notice is taken in Saint Lu! e's narrative that the judicial decrees were (as they still are in the East) of our Saviour's mock trial. (xxii. 66.) It was the custom first written by a notary, and then authenticated or annulled among the Jews to pronounce sentence of condemnation in by the magistrate. To this the prophet Isaiah alludes when this manner-He is guilty of death. (Matt. xxvi. 66.) In he denounces a woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, other countries, a person's condemnation was announced to and to the writers that write grievousness. (Isa. x. 1. marginal | him by giving him a black stone, and his acquittal by giving rendering.) The judges sat, while the defendants stood, him a white stone. Ovid mentions this practice thus:particularly during the examination of witnesses. Thus, Jesus stood before the governor. (Matt. xxvii. 11.) 3. In criminal cases, when the trial came on, the judge's first care was to exhort the criminal to confess his crime, if he really were guilty: thus Joshua exhorted Achan to give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him. Josh. vii. 19.) To this custom of the Jews, St. Paul seems to allude, when he says, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth (Rom. xiv. 22.); that is, who, being convinced of the truth of a thing, does not really and effectually condemn himself in the sight of God by denying it. After the accusation was laid before the court, the criminal was heard in his defence, and therefore Nicodemus said to the chief priests and Pharisees, Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doth? (John vii. 51.) If, during the trial, the defendant, or supposed criminal, said any thing that displeased either the judge or his accuser, it was not unusual for the latter to smite him on the face. This was the case with Saint Paul (Acts xxiii. 2.), and the same brutal conduct prevails in Persia to this day.3 4. In matters of life and death, the evidence of one witness was not sufficient: in order to establish a charge, it was necessary to have the testimony of two or three credible and unimpeachable witnesses. (Num. xxxv. 30. Deut. xvii. 6, 7. xix. 15.) Though the law of Moses is silent concerning the evidence of women, Josephus says that it was prohibited on account of the levity and boldness of their sex! He also adds that the testimony of servants was inadmissible, on account of the probability of their being influenced to speak what was untrue, either from hope of gain or fear of punishment. Most likely, this was the exposition of the scribes and Pharisees, and the practice of the Jews, in the ast age of their political existence. The party sworn held up his right hand, which explains Psal. cxliv. 8., Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood. In general, the witnesses to be sworn did not Parkhurst's and Schleusner's Lexicon to the New Testament, voce Пpaypa. Boothroyd on Jude 4. Harmer's Observations, vol. ii. pp. 519-521. Morier's Second Jow aey, p. 95. Hanway's Travels, vol. i. p. 299, Michaelis's Commeraries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv. p. 325. Schulti Archæok Hebr. 0.71. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iv. c. 8. § 15. Mos erat antiquus, niveis atrisque lapillis, A custom was of old, and still obtains, DRYDEN. In allusion to this custom, some critics have supposed that Et potis es nigrum vitio prefigere Theta. But, as there was a new name inscribed on the white stone given by our Lord, which no man knoweth but he who receiveth it, it should rather seem that the allusion in this passage is to the tessera hospitales, of which the reader will find an account infra, in the close of chap. vi. of Part IV. of this volume. 7. Such were the judicial proceedings in ordinary cases, when the forms of law were observed. On some occasions, however, when particular persons were obnoxious to the populace, it was usual for them to demand prompt justice upon the supposed delinquents. It is well known that in Asia, to this day, those who demand justice against a criminal, repair in large bodies to the gate of the royal residence, where they make horrid cries, tearing their garments and throwing dust into the air. This circumstance throws great light upon the conduct of the Jews towards St. Paul, whes Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv. pp. 342, 343. Bruning says, that in cases of idolatry, the Jews assert the admissibility of false witnesses; bu he gives no authority for this statement. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iv pp. 357-359. Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 79, 80. Wetstein, Doddridge, and Dean Woodhouse on Pev. ii. 17 him some wine with incense in it, in order to stupify and intoxicate him. This custom is said to have originated in the precept recorded in Prov. xxxi. 6., which sufficiently explains the reason why wine, mingled with myrrh, was offered to Jesus Christ when on the cross. (Mark xv. 23.) In the latter ages of the Jewish polity, this medicated cup of wine was so generally given before execution, that the word cup is sometimes put in the Scriptures for death itself. Thus, Jesus Christ, in his last prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, said-If it be possible let this cup pass from me. (Matt. xxvi 39. 42. the chief captain of the Roman garrison at Jerusalem pre- | according to the Talmudical writers, the Jews always gave sented himself to them. (Acts xxii. 28-36.) When they found the apostle in the temple, prejudiced as they were against him in general, and at that time particularly irritated by the m staken notion that he had polluted the holy place by the introduction of Greeks into it, they raised a tumult, and were on the point of inflicting summary vengeance on Saint Paul. As soon as the chief captain of the Roman soldiers, who resided in a castle adjoining the temple, heard the tumult, he hastened thither. They then ceased beating the apostle, and addressed themselves to him as the chief official person there, exclaiming, Away with him. Permission being at length given to Paul to explain the affair in their hearing, they became still more violently enraged; but not daring to do themselves justice, they demanded it nearly in the same manner as the Persian peasants now do, by loud vociferations, tearing off their clothes and throwing up dust into the air.1 SECTION II. OF THE ROMAN JUDICATURE, MANNER OF TRIAL, TREATMENT V. As soon as sentence of condemnation was pronounced against a person, he was immediately dragged from the court to the place of execution. Thus our Lord was instantly hurried from the presence of Pilate to Calvary: a similar in-I. stance of prompt execution occurred in the case of Achan; and the same practice obtains to this day, both in Turkey and Persia. In those countries, when the enemies of a great man have sufficient influence to procure a warrant for his death, a capidgi or executioner is despatched with it to the victim, who quietly submits to his fate.2 Nearly the same method of executing criminals was used by the ancient Jewish princes. It is evidently alluded to in Prov. xvi. 14. Thus Benaiah was the capidgi (to use the modern Turkish term) who was sent by Solomon to put to death Adonijah, a prince of the blood royal (1 Kings ii. 25.), and also Joab the commander-in-chief of the army. (29-31.) John the Baptist was put to death in like manner. (Matt. xiv. 10.) Previously, however, to executing the criminal, it was usual, among the ancient Persians, to cover his head, that he might not behold the face of the sovereign. Thus, the head of Philotas, who had conspired against Alexander the Great, was covered; and in conformity with this practice, the head of Haman was veiled or covered. (Esth. vii. 8.) Judicial proceedings of the Romans.-H. Privileges and treatment of Roman citizens, when prisoners.—III. Appeals to the imperial tribunal.-IV. The Roman method of fetter ing and confining criminuls.—V. The Roman tribunals.— VI. Other tribunals mentioned in the New Testament :1. The Areopagus at Athens.--2. The Assembly at Ephesus. WHEREVER the Romans extended their power, they also carried their laws; and though, as we have already seen, they allowed their conquered subjects to enjoy the free performance of their religious worship, as well as the holding of some inferior courts of judicature, yet in all cases of a capital nature the tribunal of the Roman prefect or president was the last resort. Without his permission, no person could be put to death, at least in Judæa. And as we find numerous allusions in the New Testament to the Roman judicature, manner of trial, treatment of prisoners, and infliction of capital punishment, a brief account of these subjects so intimately connected with the political state of Judæa under the Romans, naturally claims a place in the present sketch.4 I. "The judicial proceedings of the Romans were conducted in a manner worthy the majesty, honour, and magnanimity of that people. Instances, indeed, occur of a most scandalous venality and corruption in Roman judges, and the story of Jugurtha and Verres will stand, a lasting monument of the power of gold to pervert justice and shester the most atrocious villany. But, in general, in the Roman judicatures, both in the imperial city and in the provinces, justice was administered with impartiality; a fair and honourable trial was permitted; the allegations of the plaintiff and defendant were respectively heard; the merits of the cause weighed and scrutinized with cool unbiassed judgment; and an equitable sentence pronounced. The Roman law, in conformity to the first principal of nature and reason, ordained that no one should be condemned and punished without a previous public trial. This was one of the decrees of the twelve tables: No one shall be condemned before he is tried. Under the Roman government, both in Italy and in the provinces, this universally obtained. After the cause is heard, says Cicero, a man may be acquitted: but, his cause unheard, no one can be condemned. To this excellent custom among the Romans, which the law of nature prescribes, and all the principles of equity, honour, and humanity dictate, there are several allusions in Scripture. We find the holy apostles, So zealous were the Jews for the observance of their law, that they were not ashamed themselves to be the executioners of it, and to punish criminals with their own hands. In stoning persons, the witnesses threw the first stones, agreeably to the enactment of Moses. (Deut. xvii. 7.) Thus, the witnesses against the protomartyr Stephen, after laying down their clothes at the feet of Saul, stoned him (Acts vii. 58, 59.); and to this custom our Saviour alludes, when he said to the Pharisees, who had brought to him a woman who had been taken in adultery,-He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John viii. 7.) As there were no public executioners in the more ancient periods of the Jewish history, it was not unusual for persons of distinguished rank themselves to put the sentence in execution upon offenders. Thus Samuel put Agag to death (1 Sam. xv. 33.); and in like manner Nebuchadnezzar ordered Arioch the commander-in-chief of his forces to destroy the wise men of Babyion, because they could not interpret his dream. (Dan. ii. 21.) Previously, however, to inflicting punishment, it was a custom of the Jews, that the witnesses should lay their hands on the criminal's head. This custom originated in an express precept of God, in the case of one who had blasphemed the name of Jehovah, who was ordered to be brought without the camp: when all, who had heard him, were appointed to lay their hands upon his head, and afterwards the congregation were to stone him. By this action they signi- Introduction to the New Testament (a work now of rare occurrence), vol. ii. The materials of this section are principally derived from Dr. Harwood's fied, that the condemned person suffered justly, protesting section xvi. the texts cited being carefully verified and corrected. The subthat, if he were innocent, they desired that his blood might jects of this and the following section are also discussed by Dr. Lardner, fall on their own head. In allusion to this usage, when sen- Credibility, part i. book i. c. 10. $$ 9--11.; and especially by Calmet in his tence was pronounced against Jesus Christ, the Jews ex-inserted in his Commentaire Litterale, tom. i. part ii. pp. 387-402., and in elaborate Dissertation sur les supplices dont il est parle dans l'Ecriture, claimed,-His blood be upon us and our children. (Matt. xxvii. his Dissertations, tom. i. p. 241. et seq. See also Merill's Note Philologica 25.) From the above-noticed precept of bringing the crimi- in passionem Christi, and Wyssenbach's Notæ Nomico-Philologica in pas nals without the camp, arose the custom of executing them sionem, in vol. iii. of Crenius's Fasciculus Opusculorum, pp. 583-691. and Lydius's Florum Sparsio ad Historiam Passionis Jesu Christi, 18mo. Dorwithout the city. drechti, 1672. But in whatever manner the criminal was put to death, Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. pp. 367-369. Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 372-376. Captains Irby and Mangles have related a singular instance of similar rapidity of executing a condemned person. In this case "the sufferer had been appointed to the command of the hadj" (or pilgrims to Mecca), "and had set off from Constantinople. While he was on his return from Mecca, a Khat-sheriffe was despatched from the capital, ordering his head to be cut off, and sent immediately to Constantinople. His sentence was carried into execution before he reached Damascus." Travels in Egypt, &c. p. 257. Quintus Curtius, lib. vi. c. 8. tom. i. p. 34. edit. Bipont. H decreta vetuerant. Fragment. xii. Tab. tit. 27. • Causâ cognità multi possunt absolvi: incognitâ quidem condemnari nemo potest. In Verrem, lib. i. c. 25. "Producing the laws which ordain that no person shall suffer death without a legal trial." Dion. Halicarn. lib. iii. p. 153. Hudson. "He did not allow them to inflict death on any citizen uncondemned." Ibid. lib. vi. p. 370. lib. vii. p. 428. edit. Hudson, Oxon. 1704. "They thought proper to call him to justice, as it is contrary to the Roman customs to condemn any one to death without a previous trial" Appian. Bell. Civil. lib. iii, p. 906. Tollii, 1670. "Did not you u serably murder Lentulus and his associates, without their being either judged or con· victed?" Dion Cassius, lib. 46. p. 463. Reimar. who did not, like frantic enthusiasts and visiouaries, court | Roman citizen. In consequence of this epistle Felix gave versecution, but embraced every legal method which the the apostle a kind and candid reception: when he read it, he usages and maxims of those times had established to avoid turned to him and said, When your accusers come hithe i, and to extricate themselves from calamities and sufferings, before me, I will give your cause an impartial hearing.' pleading this privilege, reminding the Romans of it when And accordingly when the high-priest Ananias and the Santhey were going to infringe it, and in a spirited manner up-hedrin went down to Cæsarea with one Tertullus an orator, praiding their persecutors with their violation of it. When whose eloquence they had hired to aggravate the apostle's Lysias, the Roman tribune, ordered Saint Paul to be con- crimes before the procurator, Felix, though a man of merceducted into the castle, and to be examined by scourging, that nary and profligate character, did not depart from the Roman he might learn what he had done that enraged the mob thus honour in this regard; and would not violate the usual proviolently against him, as the soldiers were fastening him cesses of judgment to gratify this body of men, though they with thongs to the pillars to inflict this upon him, Paul said were the most illustrious personages of the province he o the centurion who was appointed to attend and see this ex-governed, by condemning the apostle unheard, and yielding ecuted, Doth the Roman law authorize you to scourge a free-him, poor and friendless as he was, to their fury, merely man of Rome uncondemned, to punish him before a legal upon their impeachment. He allowed the apostle to offer sentence hath been passed upon him? (Acts xxii. 25.) The his vindication and exculpate himself from the charges they centurion hearing this went immediately to the tribune, bid- had alleged against him; and was so far satisfied with his ding him be cautious how he acted upon the present occa- apology as to give orders for him to be treated as a prisoner sion, for the prisoner was a Roman citizen! The tribune at large, and for all his friends to have free access to him; upon this information went to him, and said, Tell me the disappointing those who thirsted for his blood, and drawing truth, Are you a freeman of Rome? He answered in the af- down upon himself the relentless indignation of the Jews, firmative. It cost me an immense sum, said the tribune, to who, undoubtedly, from such a disappointment, would be purchase this privilege. But I was the son of a freeman, instigated to lay all his crimes and oppressions before the said the apostle. Immediately, therefore, those who were emperor. ordered to examine him by torture desisted; and the tribune was extremely alarmed that he had bound a Roman citizen. In reference to this also, when Paul and Silas were treated with the last indignity at Philippi by the multitude abetted by the magistrates, were beaten with rods, thrown into the public gaol, and their feet fastened in the stocks, the next morning upon the magistrates sending their lictors to the prison with orders to the keeper for the two men whom they had the day before so shamefully and cruelly treated to be dismissed, Paul turned to the messengers and said, We are Roman citizens. Your magistrates have ordered us to be publicly scourged without a legal trial. They have thrown us into a dungeon. And would they now have us steal away in a silent and clandestine manner? No! Let them come in person and conduct us out themselves. The lictors returned and reported this answer to the governors, who were greatly alarmed and terrified when they understood they were Roman citizens. Accordingly, they went in person to the gaol, addressed them with great civility, and begged them in the most respectful terms that they would quietly leave the town. (Acts xvi. 37.)3 "Here we cannot but remark the distinguished humanity and honour which St. Paul experienced from the tribune Lysais. His whole conduct towards the apostle was worthy a Roman. This most generous and worthy officer rescued him from the sanguinary fury of the mob, who had seized the apostle, shut the temple doors, and were in a tumultuous manner dragging him away instantly to shed his blood. Afterwards, also, when above forty Jews associated and mutually bound themselves by the most solemn adjurations, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had assassinated him; when the tribune was informed of this conspiracy, to secure the person of the apostle from the determined fury of the Jews, he immediately gave orders for seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to escort the prisoner to Cæsarea, where the procurator resided; writing a letter, in which he informed the president of the vindictive rage of the Jews against the prisoner, whom he had snatched from their violence, and whom he afterwards discovered to be a 1 Dion Cassius confirms what the tribune here asserts, that this honour was purchased at a very high price. "The freedom of Rome formerly," says the historian, "could only be purchased for a large sum;" but he observes, "that in the reign of Claudius, when Messalina and his freedmen had the management of every thing, this honour became so cheap that any person might buy it for a little broken glass." Dion Cassius, lib. lx. p. 955. Reimar. "But I was free born." Probably, St. Paul's family was honoured with the freedom of Rome for engaging in Cæsar's party, and distinguishing themselves in his cause during the civil wars. Appian inforins us, that "He made the Laodiceans and Tarsensians free, and exempted them from taxes; and those of the Tarsensians who had been sold for slaves, he ordered by an edict to be released from servitude." Appian de Bell. Civil. p. 1077. Tollii. 1670. 1 The same strict honour, in observing the usual forms and processes of the Roman tribunal, appears in Festus the successor of Felix. Upon his entrance into his province, when the leading men among the Jews waited upon him to congratulate him upon his accession, and took that opportunity to inveigh with great bitterness and virulence against the apostle, soliciting it as a favour (Acts xxv. 3.) that he would send him to Jerusalem, designing, as it afterwards appeared, had he complied with their request, to have hired ruffians to murder him on the road, Festus told them, that it was his will that Paul should remain i custody at Cæsarea; but that any persons whom they fixed upon might go down along with him, and produce at his tribunal what they had to allege against the prisoner. This was worthy the Roman honour and spirit. How importunate and urgent the priests and principal magistrates of Jerusalem, when Festus was in this capital, were with him to pass sentence of death upon the apostle, merely upon their impeachment, and upon the atrocious crimes with which they loaded him, appears from what the procurator himself told king Agrippa and Bernice upon a visit they paid him at Cæsarea, to congratulate him upon his new government. I have here, said he, a man whom my predecessor left in custody when he quitted this province. During a short visit I paid to Jerusalem, upon my arrival I was solicited by the priests and principal magistrates to pass sentence of death upon him. To these urgent entreaties I replied, that it was not customary for the Romans to gratify (xxv. 16.) any man with the death of another; that the laws of Rome enacted that he who is accused should have his accuser face to face; and have license to answer for himself concerning the crimes laid against him.7 II. 66 It appears from numberless passages in the classics that a Roman citizen could not legally be scourged. This was deemed to the last degree dishonourable, the most daring indignity and insult upon the Roman name. A Roman citizen, judges!' exclaims Cicero in his oration against Verres, was publicly beaten with rods in the forum of Messina: during this public dishonour, no groan, no other expression of the unhappy wretch was heard amidst the cruelties he suffered, and the sound of the strokes that were inflicted, but this, I am a Roman citizen! By this declaration that he was a Roman citizen, he fondly imagined that he should put an end to the ignominy and cruel usage to which he was now subjected." The orator afterwards breaks forth into this Acts xxiii. 35. Literally, "Hear it through; give the whole of it an atten tive examination." Similar expressions occur in Polybius, lib. i. pp. 39. 170. 187. lib. iv. p. 328. edit. Hanov. 1619. See also Dion. Halicarn. lib. x. p. 304. Felix per omne sævitium ac libidinem, jus regium servili ingenio exer cuit. Tacitus Hist. lib. v. p. 397. edit. Dublin. Felix cuncta maleficia impune ratus. Annal. xii 54. He hoped also that money, &c. Acts xxiv. 26. "Senators," saith Piso, "the law ordains that he who is accused should hear his accusation, and after having offered his defence, to wait the sen It was deemed a great aggravation of any injury by the Roman law, that tence of the judges." Appian, Bell. Civil, lib. iii. p. 911. Tollii, Amst 167. it was done in public before the people. The Philippian magistrates, there- "He said, that what he now attempted to do was the last tyranny and des fore, conscious of the iniquity which they had cominitted, and of thepotism, hat the same person should be both accuser and judge, and should punishment to which they were liable, might well be afraid: for Paul and arbitrari, dictate the degree of punishment." Dion. Halicarn. lib. vii. p. Silas had their option, either to bring a civil action against them, or to indict 428. Hudson. them criminally for the injury which they had inflicted on the apostle and Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum: scelus verberari. In Verrem, lib. his companion. In either of which cases, had they been cast, they would be rendered infamous, and incapable of holding any magisterial office, and subjected to several other legal incapacities, besides the punishment they were to undergo at the discretion of the judge, which in so atrocious an njury would not have been small. Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 352–351. Arts xxiii. 27. "I have since learned that he is a Roman citizen." v. 170. ⚫ Cædebatur virgis in medio foro Messinæ civis Romanus, judices; cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia isins miseri, inter dolorem crepi tuinque plagarum audiebatur, nisi hæc, Civis Romanus sum. memoratione civitatis omnia verbera depulsurum cruciatumque a corpore dejecturum arbitrabatur. Cicero in Verrem, lib. v 162 Hac se com SECT. II.] MANNER OF TRIAL, &c. pathetic prosopopoeia: O transporting name of liberty! O the distinguished privilege of Roman freedom! O Porcian and Sempronian laws! Are things at last come to this wretched state, that a Roman citizen, in a Roman province, in the most public and open manner, should be beaten with ods!" The historian Appian, after relating how Marcellus, to express his scorn and contempt of Cæsar, seized a person of some distinction, to whom Cæsar had given his freedom, and beat him with rods, bidding him go and show Cæsar the marks of the scourges he had received, observes, that this was an indignity which is never inflicted upon a Roman citizen for any enormity whatever.2 Agreeably to this custom, which also obtained at Athens, in the Adelphi of Terence, one of the persons of the drama says to and ther, If you continue to be troublesome and impertinent, you shall be instantly seized and dragged within, and there you shall be torn and mangled with scourges within an inch of your life. What! a freeman scourged, replies Sannio. To this privilege of Roman citizens, whose freedom exempted them from this indignity and dishonour, there are several references in Scripture. St. Paul pleads this immunity. He said to the centurion, as they were fastening him to the pillar with thongs to inflict upon him this punishment, Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman ?4 So also at Philippi he told the messengers of the magistrates, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison, and now do they thrust us out privately; no, verily, but let them And the sergeants told come themselves and fetch us out. these words to the magistrates, and they feared when they heard that they were Romans, and were conscious they had used them with a contumely and dishonour which subjected them to the just displeasure of the Roman senate. 6 another singular privilege which a freeman of Rome enjoyed. The sacred historian relates, that after Festus had stayed about ten days in the metropolis, he went down to Cæsarea, and the next day after his arrival he summoned a court, ascended the bench, and ordered Paul to be brought before him. Here, as he stood at the bar, his prosecutors from Jerusalem For in his apology he with great virulence charged him with many heinous and atrocious crimes, none of which, upon strict examination, they were able to prove against him. publicly declared, in the most solemn terms, that they cou. not convict him of any one instance of a criminal behaviour either to the law, the temple, or to the Roman emperor. Festus then, being (Acts xxv. 9.) desirous to ingratiate himself with the Jews, asked him if he was willing his cause should be tried at Jerusalem. To this proposal Paul replied, I am now before Cæsar's tribunal, where my cause ought to be impartially canvassed and decided. You yourself are conscious that I have been guilty of nothing criminal against my countrymen. If I have injured them, if 1 have perpetrated any capital crime, I submit without reluctance to capítal punishment. But if all the charges they have now brought against me are proved to be absolutely false and groundless, no person can condemn me to death merely to gratify them. I appeal to the emperor. Festus, after deliberating with the Roman council, turned and said to him, Have you appealed to the emperor? You shall then go and be judged by the emperor. From the above-mentioned particulars, which are corroborated by several other similar incidents in the Roman history, it appears that a Roman citizen could by appeal remove his cause out of the provinces to Rome. It was,' secured by the Sempronian law, that he could not be capitally says Mr. Melmoth, one of the privileges of a Roman citizen, We are in"Neither was it lawful for a Roman citizen to be bound, convicted but by the suffrage of the people, which seems to be examined by the question, or to be the subject of any to have been still so far in force as to make it necessary Ingenious and cruel arts of tormenting to extort a confession to send the person here mentioned to Rome." from him. These punishments were deemed servile; torture formed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus that the ever-memowas not exercised but upon slaves; freemen were privileged rable Poplicola enacted this law, that if any Roman governor from this inhumanity and ignominy. It is a flagrant enormity, showed a disposition to condemn any one to death, to scourge says Cicero, for a Roman citizen to be bound: not meaning him, or despoil him of his property, that any private person by that, that it was unlawful for a Roman to be fettered and should have liberty to appeal from his jurisdiction to the imprisoned; but it was in the highest degree unjustifiable and judgment of the people, that in the mean time he should reillegal for a freeman of Rome to be bound in order to be tor-ceive no personal harm from the magistracy till his cause tured for the discovery of his crimes. Dion Cassius, parti- was finally decided by the people. This law, which was cularizing the miseries of Claudius's government, observes, instituted at the first establishment of the commonwealth, that Messalina and Narcissus, and the rest of his freemen, continued in force under the emperors. If a freeman of seized the occasion that now offered to perpetrate the last Rome, in any of the provinces, deemed himself and his cause enormities. Among other excesses they employed slaves to be treated by the president with dishonour and injustice, and freedmen to be informers against their masters. They he could by appeal remove it to Rome to the determination put to the torture several persons of the first distinction, not of the emperor. Suetonius informs us that Augustus delemerely foreigners, but citizens; not only of the common peo- gated a number of consular persons at Rome to receive the ple, but some even of the Roman knights and senators: appeals of people in the provinces, and that he appointed one though Claudius, when he first entered upon his government, person to superintend the affairs of each province. A passage had bound himself under a solemn oath that he would never in Pliny's epistle confirms this right and privilege which apply the torture to any Roman citizen. These two pas- Roman freemen enjoyed of appealing from provincial courts sages from Cicero and Dion illustrate what St. Luke relates to Rome, and, in consequence of such an appeal, being reconcerning Lysias the tribune. This officer, not knowing moved, as St. Paul was, to the capital, to take their trial in the dignity of his prisoner, had, in violation of this privilege the supreme court of judicature. In that celebrated epistle of Roman citizens, given orders for the apostle to be bound, to Trajan, who desired to be informed concerning the princi and examined by scourging. (Acts xxii. 24, 25.) When ples and conduct of the Christians, he thus writes: "The he was afterwards informed by his centurion that St. Paul method I have observed towards those who have been brought was a freeman of Rome, the sacred historian observes, that before me as Christians is this-I interrogated them whether ordered them to be immediately upon receiving this intelligence, the chief captain was afraid, they were Christians: if they confessed, I repeated the ques they still persevered, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had tion twice again, adding threats at the same time, when, if bound him. (xxii. 29.) There were others, also, punished; for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. brought before me, possessed with the same infatuation thither.'12 but, being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried III. "We find that St. Paul, when he discovered that Festus his judge was disposed to gratify the Jews, appealed from a provincial court to the imperial tribunal; transferred his cause, by appeal, from the jurisdiction of the Roman procurator to the decision of the emperor. This appears to be 1 O nomen dulce liberatis! O jus eximium nostræ civitatis! O lex Porcia, legesque Semproniæ! Huccine tandem omnia recederunt, ut civis Romanus in provincia populi Romani, delegatis in foro virgis cæderetur. Ibid. 163. • Appian. Bell. Civil. lib. ii. p. 731. Tollii. Nam si molestus pergis esse, jam intro abripiere, atque ibi • Acts xxii. 25. The consul Marcellus scourged with rods one of the ma • Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum. Cicero in Verr. lib. v. 170. gusti, cap. 27. p. 192. Variorum Edit. 1 See the last note but one. Dion Cassius, lib. x. p. 953. Reimar. 10 IV. "The Roman method of fettering and confining cri modious length, was fixed about the right arm of the prisoner minals was singular. One end of a chain, that was of com and the other end was fastened to the left arm of a soldier Thus a soldier was coupled to the prisoner, and every where Mr. Melmoth's note on the 97th letter in the 10th book of Pliny's Epis tles, vol. ii. p. 672. 3d edit. 10 Dion. Halicarn. lib. v. p. 281. edit. Oxon. 1704. See also p. 334. ejusdem edit. 11 Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum prætori delega Sueton. in vita Au- vit; ac provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provincia negotiis reposuisset. Sueton. vit. August. cap. 33. p. 208. edit. var. Ing. Bal 1662. 12 Plinii Epistola, lib. x. epist. 97. pp. 722, 723. ed. var. 1669 |